I still think a BP to hold 8 sets would be a necessity since Amtrak will not give the Worcester Line any additional slots for the Terminal, and assoicated congestion crossing over the entire plant would entail.

The layover study is shackled to SSX for that exact reason. The station expansion must decongest the interlockings and eliminate conflicting movements no matter which layover site gets chosen. The reconfig largely solves that problem and leaves the layover selection site-neutral.

For practical purposes if Widett's their preferred site and it's available, they can't have their cake and eat it too. The sale proceeds for compacting the Pike further and opening up more land for redev are what offset the acquisition costs for the much cheaper Widett acreage. If they want the greater storage, they're going to have to land-swap some excess. Per this news and the trending with the last FCMB update re: BP layover's downsizing from 14 to 8 sets, land swapping appears to be exactly the terms of engagement for getting a crack at the Widett ground-level.

In a perfect world banking all the inner-city land they can get a hold of is smart business. But it's not a perfect world. If they want a shot at 24-30 trains of storage and a perma-fix, the air rights peg provisions there and trading out of BP are the means to a better end. It's a no-brainer if Widett negotiations go down that way.

Last edited by CRail on Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Quoting the previous post to its entirety.

A MassDOT environmental report details plans to expand South Station over nine years that would hinge on getting the Postal Service to finally abandon its giant facility along Fort Point Channel and moving the food-distribution companies of Widett Circle someplace else.

The new plan is to go all-in on Widett BUT continue advancing expansion of Readville Yard 2 by 8 trainsets with a new sound wall as part of the proposal. Beacon Park has been transferred out of the SSX study and re-grouped under the Pike realignment, with intent to advance new concepts for the layover there. However, that de-coupling cedes control of the final fate of already shrunken design for that layover to MassHighway and Harvard. While they're covering all bases with prelim design on all 3 sites, the expansion of Readville--which is MORE trainset storage than the previous draft study specced--appears to be a hedge that BP may not be available when all is said and done if shrinking/deleting it significantly lowers the cost of the Pike realignment (it will: shorter overpasses and more real estate revenue offsets).

Stay tuned, but looks like the perma-fix for southside storage is very real and possibly imminent.

On Saturday, the west end lead of Beacon Park was reconnected to the WML just west of Boston Landing off of Track 1. Guess they can finally get some the piece of track equipment that was stranded in there out to perform work again.

Also the new CP6 switches are being assembled on top of some of the remaining yard tracks in Beacon Park.

Yes, WML is the abbreviation for Worcester Main Line. There are still two small breaks in the rail, and a large one to connect from just west of Boston Landing to the Grand Junction. One is where the old split rail derail was for the temporary track alignment for the west end switch. the 2nd easy one is missing sections of rail approximately halfway through beacon park across all tracks. It looks to be either one or two sticks in length to connect the halves of the yard together. The big project would be to reinstall the ladder from the east end (CP3, Cottage Farm) after the pair of hand throws that get you from the mainline to trail to GJ, or lead to houghton or the loop. There's only enough room left on the east yard lead after the pair of hand throws to hold some pieces of MoW equipment underneath the Mass Pike.

According to Dave's track chart, there is no access from Boston Landing to the Grand Junction. While there is no passenger service planned for the Grand Junction (oh wait, Bus Rapid Transit being constructed in East Boston/Chelsea), it would require an additional switch east of the station to connect Track 2, and moving part of the CP3 switch to connect Track 1. Or a backup move.

I read somewhere that there is a hand-throw being installed off the #1 track to allow access to the Grand Junction. Could be that it'll become a controlled switch if the plan to run some trains to North Station ever comes to pass.

Sooner than that. It'll probably become a controlled switch when the Pike realignment track layout is finalized. Don't forget, if the Food Market moves from Widett Circle allowing that layover to be built there could be more property bartering with Harvard over the BP easement shrinking it more than it already has shrunk in the latest renders. The FCMB's last layover presentation hinted at door being left ajar for further Harvard negotiation. As long as stuff like that is still in flux they'll get by with a hand-throw. But once they know the final-final layout the GJ gets used often enough with current traffic to merit a power switch. It shouldn't need to wait for a passenger proposal to tidy up that remainder...just a frozen track config for the final Pike design.

Rockingham Racer wrote:I read somewhere that there is a hand-throw being installed off the #1 track to allow access to the Grand Junction. Could be that it'll become a controlled switch if the plan to run some trains to North Station ever comes to pass.

Both switches from track 1 to the "freight" tracks as I call them (I have no idea what the current lingo is) are hand throw electric lock switches. Each has a derail on the freight lead section. The derail near the west end of Boston Landing is a partial split rail switch derailer and the one near CP 3 is a wedge derailer (I think, I haven't really got a good look at it).

Both hand throw switches are outside the limits of any interlocking - the west end is obviously nowhere near an interlocking with the abandonment of CP 4 and the switch near CP 3 is west of the limits of that interlocking. The freight track connecting the Grand Junction area to the "yard" area is not yet complete, but based on the grading that is ongoing, it will be difficult to arrange a turnout from eastbound track 1 to the Grand Junction / freight leads. This video isn't the greatest, but you can somewhat see what I'm talking about around the 4:00 minute mark. The MassPike supports, the curves, and the topography are difficult right at that corner. Presumably you could add a switch from track 1 to the freight lead way back to the west of the eastbound right hand curve (say around the 4:02 mark in the video) - which would put the switch perhaps leading from track 1 into the southernmost "yard" track. I really doubt they'll do that now but I would agree that once the Pike realignment and the plans for West Station become more definite, they would reconfigure the tracks there.

I think the no-build option is 400M+ to replace the viaduct, vs 1B+ for the preferred options. Plus, I *think* this would revert the storage space to the larger space than the recently agreed smaller size, although without Harvard paying in.